Qualitative Review on Domains of Quality of Life Important for Patients, Social Care Users, and Informal Carers to Inform the Development of the EQ-HWB

Appropriateness of the EQ-HWB for Use in Residential Aged Care: A Proxy Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new generic quality-of-life measure for use in evaluating interventions in health, public health and social care. This study aimed to explore proxies' views regarding the appropriateness of the EQ-HWB for measuring residents' quality of life living in residential aged care facilities.

METHODS

Qualitative think-aloud and semi-structured interviews were conducted with family members and aged care staff across three facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Proxies completed the 25-item EQ-HWB proxy version 2 (i.e. proxy-person perspective) whilst talking through the reasons for choosing their response. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The sample included 29 proxies; nine family members and 20 aged care staff. The first theme summarised proxies' ability to proxy report residents' health and well-being using the EQ-HWB, which highlighted challenges with adherence to the proxy perspective, proxies' limited knowledge about residents, disagreement with residents' self-evaluation and use of heuristics. The second theme reflected feedback on the suitability of the EQ-HWB for use in residential aged care. Although proxies perceived that the EQ-HWB covered important domains, there were concerns about ambiguity, inappropriate examples, double-barrelled items and perceived repetition. Suggestions were made to improve the response options, comprehensiveness, recall period, layout and instructions of the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

While the EQ-HWB captures domains relevant to residential aged care, modifications to item wording and examples are necessary to improve its appropriateness. Use of the proxy-person perspective revealed some challenges that require further consideration.

Can items derived from international literature be used in national quality of life instruments? A qualitative study conceptualising the EQ-HWB in China

INTRODUCTION

The EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) is a new questionnaire for measuring quality of life (QoL) from a broad perspective. The items of the EQ-HWB were derived based on a 'qualitative review' of literature, which reported primarily on Western studies. It can be argued that the QoL is a cultural-related concept and therefore people from China have a different understanding of the QoL. This study aimed to explore whether Chinese citizens could understand the EQ-HWB's candidate items and what they thought of those items. In doing so, we wanted to examine the face validity of the candidate items and explore if further cultural adaptation is necessary.

METHODS

This research was part of the E-QALY project, in which 36 candidate items were selected for the EQ-HWB from a 97-item pool. In China, three interviewers investigated the face validity of these EQ-HWB candidate items in semi-structured qualitative face-to-face interviews. Respondents were invited to report 'problems' with regard to the interpretation of the items and these problems were grouped into themes. We explored to what extent those themes related to specific cultural aspects in China. We also classified the rates of reported problems for each item into three groups: 1) less than 20%, 2) from 20-50%, and 3) over 50%.

RESULTS

For 17 items the rate of reported problems was less than 20%, 15 items fell into the second group (with 20 - 50%) and for 4 items the rate of problems reported was more than 50%. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: ambiguous problems in the interpretation of 16 items; difficult to understand (11); contained a complex negative expression (10); examples used seemed inappropriate (7); misleading connotation in Chinese (2); long and complex (2); complex response options (1); and use of non-colloquial language (1).

DISCUSSION

Our research shows that EQ-HWB candidate items require careful examination to make them more comprehensible. Most of the reported problem themes were generic problems related to the items, and only a few face validity issues appeared to relate to specific cultural aspects in China, even though most of the items were based on Western studies. Our findings are reassuring for the instrument's international application, especially in China.

Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is heterogeneous and inconsistent. The objectives of this study were (1) to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework of HRQoL in ALS and (2) map the content of existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in ALS to this novel framework.

METHODS

Our model of HRQoL in ALS (Health-related Quality of life in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, QuALS) was developed from a systematic literature review and consultative input from key stakeholders (patients, carers, and health care professionals). Five electronic databases were searched in April 2022. Primary studies of any design that assessed HRQoL in ALS by using a multi-item PROM and/or qualitative methods were identified. Using an a priori framework, HRQoL themes were extracted and iteratively modified from the content of each PROM and qualitative study quotations identified in the literature. The conceptual framework was ratified by stakeholders with lived experience and clinical experts. The QuALS framework was used to map the content of identified PROMs and qualitative studies based on thematic coverage.

RESULTS

QuALS covers 3 high-level domains of HRQoL (physical, psychological, and social functioning) and consists of 7 themes (Activities; Physical Health; Autonomy; Cognition; Feelings and Emotions; Self-identity; Relationships), characterized by 42 subthemes. Of 8,220 studies identified, 274 were included in the review that informed QuALS. In these studies, 111 PROMs were used to assess at least 1 aspect of HRQoL, and 11 studies used qualitative methods. Of the 3 high-level domains, physical functioning was the most commonly assessed, particularly within ALS-specific PROMs where almost one-quarter of PROMs exclusively assessed physical functioning. None of the PROMs or qualitative studies identified assessed all aspects of HRQoL in the QuALS framework.

DISCUSSION

This study presents a new comprehensive conceptual framework of HRQoL in ALS (QuALS), informed by a robust systematic review of existing literature and stakeholder input, incorporating lived experience. QuALS provides a valuable resource for researchers and clinicians interested in taking a holistic approach to assessing and understanding the full impact of ALS on HRQoL and how this may be affected by treatments.

Measuring health related quality of life (HRQoL) in Lysosomal Storage Disorders (LSDs): a rapid scoping review of available tools and domains

BACKGROUND

Lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) are a group of rare inherited metabolic disorders, consisting of over 70 diseases that are characterised by lysosomal dysfunction. Due to their varied and progressive symptoms, LSDs have a continual impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Several recently published studies have provided insight into the HRQoL of individuals with LSDs. However, it is challenging to meaningfully synthesise this evidence, since studies often focus upon a particular type of LSD and / or utilise different self-report questionnaires or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess HRQoL.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to review the published literature in LSDs, to identify the PROMs which have been used to assess HRQoL and generate a conceptual map of HRQoL domains measured in individuals diagnosed with LSDs.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched in March 2022. Primary studies of any design which utilised multi-item PROMs to assess at least one aspect of HRQoL in individuals with LSDs since 2017 were identified. Data were extracted to assess both the characteristics of each study and of the PROMs utilised within each study. The extraction of HRQoL domains and synthesis were informed by an a priori framework, inductively modified to reflect data emerging from the identified literature. Selection and extraction was undertaken independently by two reviewers; discrepancies were ratified by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Sixty nine studies were identified which were published 2017-2022, with a combined total of 52 PROMs (71 variants) used to assess HRQoL in individuals with LSDs. The final extracted HRQoL framework included 7 domains (Activities; Physical sensations; Autonomy; Cognition; Feelings and emotions; Self-identity; Relationships), characterised by 37 sub-domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the breadth and variety of HRQoL domains assessed in individuals with LSDs, across three broad domains of physical, psychological and social functioning. The resultant framework and mapped PROMs will aid researchers and clinicians in the selection of PROMs to assess aspects of HRQoL in people living with LSDs, based on their conceptual coverage.

The Validity of the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) Instrument in Parents of Children With and Without Health Conditions

BACKGROUND

 The EuroQol Health and Wellbeing Short Version (EQ-HWB-S) instrument has been developed to measure the health and wellbeing of care-recipients and their caregivers for use in economic evaluation.The EQ-HWB-S has nine items, and pilot UK preference weights have now been developed.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the validity of the instrument in parents of children with and without health conditions.

METHODS

EQ-HWB-S data were sourced from an Australian paediatric multi-instrument comparison study. We analysed the baseline characteristics and response distribution of the EQ-HWB-S items. Assessment of known-group validity was conducted for EQ-HWB-S items, level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, including partial effects. Known-group analyses included three child health variables and where caregivers reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had impacted their wellbeing. We included analyses across gender, controlled for child and parent demographic variables, and compared scores across child health conditions.

RESULTS

 Item responses were distributed as expected, with higher skew for mobility and activities. Parents experienced high levels of exhaustion. We detected significant differences between groups for level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores, as hypothesised; all tests were significant (p < 0.001), with moderate effect sizes (effect sizes were slightly higher for female than male parents). The regression analysis identified significantly different EQ-HWB-S scores for child health samples compared with the general population after controlling for demographic variables. Differences were observed between child health conditions.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-HWB-S is a useful instrument to measure parent quality of life for economic evaluation in this population. Data were limited to one time point; further research should investigate the instrument's sensitivity to change and test-retest reliability in this population.

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis

BACKGROUND

Only one pilot value set (UK) is currently available for the EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument short version (EQ-HWB-S). As an alternative to preference-weighted scoring, we examined whether a level summary score (LSS) is appropriate for the EQ-HWB-S using Mokken scaling analyses.

METHODS

Data from patients, carers and the general population collected during the developmental phase of the EQ-HWB-S in Australia, US and UK were used, noting 3 of 9 items have since undergone revision. EQ-HWB-S data fit was examined using R package Mokken scaling's monotone homogeneity model, utilizing the automated item selection procedure (AISP) as well as Loevinger's scaling coefficients for items and the scale (HS). Manifest monotonicity was assessed by examining whether the cumulative probability for responses at or above each response level did not decrease across the summary score.

RESULTS

EQ-HWB-S data were available for 3340 respondents: US = 903, Australia = 514 and UK = 1923. Mean age was 50 ± 18 and 1841 (55%) were female. AISP placed all 9 items of the EQ-HWB-S on a single scale when the lower bound was set to < 0.448. Strong scalability (HS = 0.561) was found for the EQ-HWB-S as a single scale. Stronger scales were formed by separating the psychosocial items (n = 6, HS = 0.683) and physical sensation items (n = 3, HS = 0.713). No violations of monotonicity were found except for the items mobility and daily activities for the subgroups with long-term conditions and UK subjects, respectively.

DISCUSSION

As EQ-HWB-S items formed a strong scale and subscales based on Mokken analysis, LSS is a promising weighting-free approach to scoring.

The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events

PURPOSE

The recently developed EQ Health and Wellbeing Instrument (EQ-HWB) is a broad, generic measure of quality-of-life designed to be suitable for caregivers. The aim of this study was to investigate performance and validity of the 9-item version (EQ-HWB-S) for caregivers where families had experienced adverse-life-events.

METHODS

Using survey data from caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending a community-health centre in 2021-2022, the general performance, feasibility, convergent and known-group validity, responsiveness-to-change, and test-retest reliability of the EQ-HWB-S was assessed. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with survey respondents to assess acceptability and content validity.

RESULTS

The sample included  234 caregivers at baseline (81% female, mean age 36-years, 38% Australian-born) and 190 at 6-months follow-up. Most EQ-HWB-S item responses were evenly spread, except for 'Mobility'. The instrument showed good convergent validity with psychological distress (Kessler 6 (K6)) and personal-wellbeing (PWI-A) scales. EQ-HWB-S level sum-scores and preference-weighted scores were significantly different in all known-group analyses, in expected directions, and the instrument was responsive to change. For test-retest reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were excellent and individual item Kappa scores were moderate. The instrument was well received by interviewees who found the questions clear and relevant. The items were appropriate for parents experiencing adversity and carers of children with additional needs.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-HWB-S appeared valid, responsive to change, feasible, and well accepted by caregivers. By demonstrating the validity of the EQ-HWB-S in this hard-to-reach population of caregivers in families experiencing adverse events, this study adds to existing international evidence supporting its use.

Content validity of the EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S in a sample of Italian patients, informal caregivers and members of the general public

BACKGROUND

The EuroQol Group recently developed two new instruments, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and the EQ Health and Wellbeing short version (EQ-HWB-S). The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S are intended to capture a broad range of health and broader quality of life aspects, which may be relevant to general public members, patients, their families, social care users and informal carers. This study assesses the content validity of the Italian version of the two instruments in a sample of Italian patients, social care users and informal carers.

METHODS

Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. One-on-one interviews were carried out using video-conferencing interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interview procedures, with open-ended questions supplemented by probes. Participants were asked to explain important aspects of their health and quality of life, to complete the questionnaires and verbalize their thoughts.

RESULTS

Twenty participants comprising of patients (n = 9), informal carers (n = 6), and members of the general public (n = 5) participated to the study. Content validity was summarized into six main themes: comprehension, interpretation, acceptability, relevance, response options and recall period. All participants found the instruments easy or quite easy to understand and to respond to. Items were relevant for all three groups of participants, and response options appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

The Italian version of the EQ-HWB showed content validity in measuring health and wellbeing in a mixed Italian population.

Assessing the Content Validity of Preference-Based Measures in Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the content validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based measures (PBMs) with patients treated for cancer, evaluated against 10 Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity, to best inform measurement strategies regarding the use of PBMs in oncology development programs and real-world applications.

METHODS

Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who received drug treatment for cancer in the United Kingdom (n = 47) and the United States (n = 49). During the interview, patients completed 3 generic PBMs (EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form, Château Santé Base) and 2 condition-specific PBMs (Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension [FACT-8D]). Interviews were conducted via teleconference, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using thematic and content analysis methods.

RESULTS

Condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Overall, the FACT-8D was evaluated as holding the best content validity in terms of relevancy, and the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing measure-Short Form received the most favorable evaluation of relevancy for generic PBMs. All measures demonstrated comparable comprehensiveness, with all suggested by patients to be missing concepts. The EQ-5D-5L was evaluated best in terms of comprehensibility. This was followed by the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimension and FACT-8D; both received similar evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

All measures were generally seen by patients as adequate in capturing appropriate aspects of health-related quality of life for measuring cancer outcomes, although together condition-specific measures were evaluated as having better relevancy than generic PBMs. Further health-related quality of life instrument development is encouraged, particularly with regard to the longer-term detrimental impacts of cancer and treatment side effects. Other developments could include new cancer-specific tools inclusive of conventional health items, treatment impacts, and psychological items.

Face Validity of Four Preference-Weighted Quality-of-Life Measures in Residential Aged Care: A Think-Aloud Study

OBJECTIVE

There is an increased use of preference-weighted quality-of-life measures in residential aged care to guide resource allocation decisions or for quality-of-care assessments. However, little is known about their face validity (i.e., how understandable, appropriate and relevant the measures are 'on their face' when respondents complete them). The aim of this study was to assess the face validity of four preference-weighted measures (i.e., EQ-5D-5L, EQ-HWB, ASCOT, QOL-ACC) in older people living in residential aged care.

METHODS

Qualitative cognitive think-aloud interviews were conducted using both concurrent and retrospective think-aloud techniques. To reduce burden, each resident completed two measures, with the four measures randomised across participants. Audio recordings were transcribed and framework analysis was used for data analysis, based on an existing framework derived from the Tourangeau four-stage response model.

RESULTS

In total, 24 interviews were conducted with residents living across three residential aged care facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Response issues were identified across all four measures, often related to comprehension and difficulty selecting a response level due to double-barrelled and ambiguous items that have different meanings in the residential aged care context. We also identified issues related to understanding instructions, non-adherence to the recall period, and noted positive responding that requires attention when interpreting the data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide further evidence on the appropriateness of existing measures, indicating numerous response issues that require further research to guide the selection process for research and practice.

Valuing the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short Using Time Trade-Off and a Discrete Choice Experiment: A Feasibility Study

OBJECTIVES

The EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S) is a new generic measure that covers health and wellbeing developed for use in economic evaluation in health and social care. The aim was to test the feasibility of using composite time trade-off (cTTO) and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) based on an international protocol to derive utilities for the EQ-HWB-S and to generate a pilot value set.

METHODS

A representative UK general population was recruited. Online videoconference interviews were undertaken where cTTO and DCE tasks were administered using EuroQol Portable Valuation Technology. Quality control (QC) was used to assess interviewers' performance. Data were modeled using Tobit, probit, and hybrid models. Feasibility was assessed based on the distribution of data, participants, and reports of understanding from the interviewer, QC and modeling results.

RESULTS

cTTO and DCE data were available for 520 participants. Demographic characteristics were broadly representative of the UK general population. Interviewers met QC requirements. cTTO values ranged between -1 to 1 with increasing disutility associated with more severe states. Participants understood the tasks and the EQ-HWB-S states; and the interviewers reported high levels of understanding and engagement. The hybrid Tobit heteroscedastic model was selected for the pilot value set with values ranging from -0.384 to 1. Pain, mobility, daily activities, and sad/depressed had the largest disutilities, followed by loneliness, anxiety, exhaustion, control, and cognition in the selected model.

CONCLUSIONS

EQ-HWB-S can be valued using cTTO and DCE. Further methodological work is recommended to develop a valuation protocol specific to the EQ-HWB-S.

A head-to-head comparison of well-being of older people (WOOP) and EQ-5D-5L in patients, carers and general public in China

Recently, well-being of older people measure (WOOP) was developed and validated in a Dutch population. Although WOOP was developed targeting the older people, it has the potential for use in a wider population. In this study, we aimed to examine the relationship between WOOP and EQ-5D-5L and compared their psychometric properties in a sample of patients, carers and healthy general public covering a wider age group. We conducted a cross-sectional study in Guizhou Province, China between July and August 2022. Data was collected using paper and pencil. We analysed and reported the acceptability, item response distribution, the Spearman correlation coefficients of all items, the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of all items, the known-group validity and the convergent validity of EQ-5D-5L utility and WOOP utility. A total of 322 participants completed the survey with 105 patients, 101 carers and 116 healthy general public. 9% of participants had at least one missing response. Three items of WOOP did not have any level 5 responses and EQ-5D-5L had more level 1 responses. The correlations were low between EQ-5D-5L and WOOP items and the three-factor EFA showed these two instruments had only one shared factor and the other two factors were only related to WOOP items. Younger people had lower missing response rate and a different response distribution for three items. WOOP measures a broader construct beyond health while EQ-5D-5L is a more sensitive instrument when health is considered alone. There is a potential of using WOOP in a wider population.

Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons

BACKGROUND

There is variability across studies in the dimensionality i.e., set of latent variables to which health, social care and wellbeing measures relate. This variability may impact the development of new measures and the identification of bolt-on dimensions. We examine the dimensionality of commonly used measures and identify a set of potential bolt-ons for the EQ-5D-5L.

METHODS

We used the OMS dataset, an online survey of health, social care and wellbeing measures in patients and members of the general public. A content analysis provided a theoretical framework for results interpretation. Quantitative analyses were based on a pool of 79 items from 7 measures. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess health, social care and wellbeing measures dimensionality and their contribution to quality of life. The relationship between EQ-5D-5L items and the identified factors was used for bolt-ons identification.

RESULTS

The dimensionality comprised of seven factors, namely physical functioning, psychological symptoms, energy/sleep, physical pain, social functioning, needs and satisfaction. Health measures covered five of the seven factors identified, wellbeing measures three and the social care measure one. A list of candidate bolt-on items for the EQ-5D-5L was presented e.g., cognition, energy, dignity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence on the dimensionality of health, social care and wellbeing measures and presents a list of candidate bolt-ons for the EQ-5D-5L.

Should We Consider Including a Value for "Hope" as an Additional Benefit Within Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) typically uses average health-related quality of life gain as its main measure of benefit used in economic evaluation. Nevertheless, there have been calls to consider novel aspects of benefit including the "value of hope," defined as a patients' potential preferences for a wider distribution of treatment benefit with a positive skew, in the hope that they will be one of the lucky ones. The value of hope may also derive from feeling hopeful as a positive mental state, which may be missing from current measures of health-related quality of life. The value attributed to feeling hopeful could be related to, or additional to, the value derived from possible risk-seeking preferences. Here, we reflect upon the strength of the case for the inclusion of the "value of hope" taking a critical look at the commonly referenced evidence for including the "value of hope" as risk-seeking preferences. We also draw attention to other conceptions of hope-as an emotion, a cognitive process, or a combination of both-and reflect upon the potential of including these broader notions of hope into HTA. The case for the inclusion of the "value of hope" based on risk-seeking preferences is weak. We suggest research questions that could give further evidence on whether hope is an important missing value from HTA.

The role of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development of the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB)

Objectives

The value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) within the development and refinement of outcome measures is becoming increasingly recognized. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of how PPIE was integrated within the development of a new measure designed for use in economic evaluations across health and social care, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB™).

Methods

Four PPIE sessions were held at key stages. Discussions from each session and the outcome of any tasks were shared with the wider research team and used to help inform decision-making.

Results and discussion

PPIE covered several components of outcome measure development including; review of conceptual model; discussion on sub-domain inclusion; item refinement and reduction; pre-testing of items; selection of items for the measure; and design of the measure. Key learning points for future projects were highlighted including; consideration of practicalities, resources and logistics of PPIE activities; how sessions and activities are managed effectively; and how to managing expectations and communication from both researcher and PPIE perspectives.

Conclusions

The PPIE group provided invaluable insight into perspectives of future patients and carers. Their input was fed into a number of developmental stages. The formal involvement from the PPIE group meant that the voice of the general public was heard. This helped ensure the appropriateness of the design of the final measure.